1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to systems for tracking and reporting of sales processes. More particularly, it relates to an automated system for developing processes and tracking use of the processes.
2. Discussion of Related Art
As sales organizations have grown, it has become increasingly difficult to monitor the activities of individual salespeople. It has also become increasingly difficult for salespeople to provide meaningful reporting of the status of potential sales and ongoing sales activities. Therefore, a need exists for a system that permits accurate reporting of sales activities and the status of deals for meaningful analysis.
Furthermore, often there are known procedures that have proven successful over time for selling certain kinds of products within a company. New or less experienced people need guidance with respect to these procedures. Extensive training programs are not an effective use of resources for providing such information. Cumbersome training and procedural manuals are difficult to use and the appropriate process cannot always be located. Therefore, a need exists for a real-time system that provides guidance for individual steps of a process.
A system by Salesnet, Inc., called Process Builder 2, provided many of the features lacking in prior systems. The Process Builder 2 system was a computerized system designed to allow for creation of processes by administrators, and use by sales people. The system tracked the performance of the defined processes for multiple deals. The system had a web based, remote access design in which the software and data was stored at a central location. The administrators and users would access the system remotely through a network, such as the Internet. Process Builder 2 included a basic relational database which included entries for processes, steps, results, deals and tracking of deals. Each process was defined by a set of ordered steps. Each step had a set of possible results corresponding to that step. The results identified the next step in the process. The administrator could create a process by creating steps and results corresponding to that process.
A user would create a deal by entering basic information regarding the deal and identifying a process applicable to that deal. The user was then provided with the list of steps in the identified process and an indication of the current step. As the user completed each step, he or she would select the appropriate result. If the result did not end the deal, the next step in the process would be identified as the current step. Data would also be collected about the steps taken for each deal. The time and result of each step was recorded.
An administrator could use the Process Builder 2 system for generating different reports based upon the stored data. In particular, the status of all deals, across all users or for a selected user, could be determined. The steps taken by various users could also be determined. Furthermore, the data could be manipulated to determine various statistics regarding user performance, individually or in the aggregate.
Despite the many advantages of the automated Process Builder 2 system, it still lacked many features that would permit useful reporting of process information. In particular, Process Builder 2 was a sequential system, wherein each step of a process had to be performed in order within a deal. The possible results of each step were limited, since they could only result in repeating a step, going to the next step, and terminating the deal. Significant data about a deal were not recorded and could not be reported. For example, in Process Builder 2, the a probability of winning a deal could be associated with a step, but only by the process owner at the time of creation. Variations in probabilities at the time of performance could not be recorded. Also, deals were limited to a single user, which does not correspond to the team sales approach in many businesses. Processes, and corresponding steps and results, were also limited to specific owners, which limited the ability of others to correct or change the process. Furthermore, the Process Builder 2 system was static; processes could not be changed when there were any deals that had already begun using the process, so a new process had to be created. Therefore, a need remained for a system that provided efficient and useful automation of sales processes and data reporting.